NPR Radiolab morality test

[kvnchrist]

 

To answer your questions though... Given the constraints of your question (ie yes/no, without middle ground or compromise):

 

1. Pull lever, save 5 compared to 1. In reality I'd go with derailing.

 

2. Don't push the man, not only is it direct murder but it may not even work.

 

3. Don't suffocate the baby, I'll gladly die before I commit infanticide. I don't care if it means we both die.

 

Very comfortable answers and the last you would be making that decision for everyone, not just yourself and you would be rewarded by the child's death, along with the others.

[MajKrAzAm]

The trolley moral question is just circlejerk philosophical masturbation. The question is intended to force you to decide between thinking autistically, in which case the logic of sacrificing one individual for five people makes perfect sense, and thinking humanely, in which sacrificing an innocent person for the greater good of five seems too disturbing. Usually the autistic response is framed as "rational", although the most rational response would – as Vagrant mentioned - be that pondering the choice is a complete waste of time.

 

The real issue here is that the only people who would expect to kill an innocent person (even a fat one) to save five other strangers have worryingly damaged brains which causes them difficulty with thinking about problems in a human way. People who don't push the fatty have brain activity in the emotional-reasoning parts of the brain - this is a sign they are normal, because it is actually normal to think through problems using emotions. It is only a weirdo who earnestly applies a "logical" cost-benefit ratio to the expenditure of human life. Aside from using it as a test of psychological deformity, the trolley-morality problem question is worthlessly stupid.

[Vagrant0]

The study was about seeing what areas of the brain controls the decision making process.

Yes, and I was making it abundantly clear why these sorts of studies are just a big steaming pile of crap that does very little in the greater picture. Psychology journals are full of this sort of thing... Studies done which are either incredibly shallow under inspection, or have fundamental problems with either their methods or the logic which they use to make conclusions. Studies like this sound great for those sorts of people who like to "sound" smart, but not for any deeper commentary on the subject. NPR or not, there are better studies out there that deal with real-world examples and actions people have actually taken, rather than being a constructed hypothetical question aimed at getting a specific response. Even in the field of neurology, there are more meaningful studies out there, or even better constructed questions for weighing perceptions of morality; one involving a woman trying to cross a bridge comes to mind (though I can't find the text).

 

Heck, you could get better results just by paying a few college kids to wear an electrode cap while they play D&D (depending on the construction of the campaign).

[WarRatsG]

 

 

To answer your questions though... Given the constraints of your question (ie yes/no, without middle ground or compromise):

 

1. Pull lever, save 5 compared to 1. In reality I'd go with derailing.

 

2. Don't push the man, not only is it direct murder but it may not even work.

 

3. Don't suffocate the baby, I'll gladly die before I commit infanticide. I don't care if it means we both die.

 

Very comfortable answers and the last you would be making that decision for everyone, not just yourself and you would be rewarded by the child's death, along with the others.

I said I wouldn't kill the baby, especially since if it was my own, but I could try to find another option. Even if that meant leaving the baby in the hands of someone else while I sacrifice myself to lead them away from the house.

 

One way or another I'll die someday - maybe one day someone will finally manage to stab me (a few have tried), maybe a horrible accident, disease or old age. We all will. When, where and how I go makes little difference to me. I'll go with my integrity and take my chances against a thousand machete wielding cannibal rapists.

 

And if the others feel unfairly treated, I'll take all 20 of them if they want to separate me from my integrity - or my kid. If survival would take away either, what's the point?

Edited November 19, 2013 by WarRatsG

[HeyYou]

1. Flip the switch. The good of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

 

2. Push him off. Same reason.

 

3. Do my best to quiet the child, smother him/her if necessary. I can have more kids. (in reality, no, I can't, but then, this IS a hypothetical situation.)

[Beriallord]

I don't feel like its up to me to decide which lives get taken, and would not consider it my responsibility to do anything in the situation of #1 or #2.

 

#3 is different, whereas my own life is on the line, and I'm gonna do whatever I think I need to do to survive. I'll try not to suffocate the baby.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Beriallord